Opinion – Rodrigo Tavares: The word terrorism should be used with moderation

by

No word is just a mere graphic expression. Each one is a storehouse of history, culture, laws and personal experiences, which go far beyond meaning. It is as if each word contains a dose of interpretation, which makes subjectivity possible, and another dose of precision, which facilitates understanding by the same linguistic community. Translators know.

But then there are some words whose interpretive elements are so preponderant that they should be used with moderation. They are dubious, partial, dissenting words. They can contain so many meanings and be used in such divergent ways by the same society that they should be avoided by all those who seek accuracy. Journalists should know.

On January 8, some TV channels and newspapers defined the invaders of the Three Powers headquarters buildings as “terrorists”. At GloboNews, the term was used unrestrainedly and consensually by all journalists, as if the insurrection dictionary contained just one word. The aim was certainly to apply a shocking term to communicate the seriousness of the facts.

state and Sheet followed safer paths. O Estadão, in the editorials of January 9, 10 and 11, used the following words to describe the invaders: “coup supporters”, “troublemakers”, “bolsonarist gang”, “radicals”, “insurgents”, “amalucados”, “radicals bolsonaristas”, “extremists” and “barbarians”, while the Sheet in the editorials of January 9th and 10th (the one of January 11th did not deal with this theme) he opted for “idiots”, “coup-mongering people”, “criminal imbeciles”, “criminals”, “vandals”, “troublemakers”, “energeumens” , “bolsonaristas”, “delinquent mob” and “extremists”.

The degree of barbarity on the 8th could legitimize excessive reactions. Legal texts may be subject to forced interpretations, there may be human rights violations in the treatment of detainees. But it is precisely when it has been attacked that the State needs to show that it is republican and under the rule of law. And communication professionals should at least follow the path.

Only the law can define whether the perpetrators of the acts can be called terrorists. There is certainly scope for using the term outside the domain of law, in a rhetorical or discursive way. But the current context is so politically sensitive that communication must be done with rationality and sobriety.

Apparently, if we read Article 2 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the attackers are not terrorists under the law. But if the Brazilian courts have another interpretation, certainly valid, only an effective conviction framed by this law would allow the use of the term.

We should not have to call the invaders terrorists in order to qualify them under the Anti-Terrorism Law, but wait for the Anti-Terrorism Law to condemn them to call them terrorists. Perhaps more importantly, regardless of the legal framework, these barbarians will be tried and punished – hopefully with the hard hand of the law.

The UN (United Nations) is a graveyard of attempts to give birth to a universal definition of terrorism. The Global Convention on International Terrorism has been stalled for decades without approval.

It is a term without consensual expression at a global level and, therefore, depends on interpretation in local laws to gain a clear meaning, even if regionalized. Therefore, the term continues to be arbitrarily used as ammunition of war. Such as Sheet pointed out, the left and the right have already switched sides on the concept of terrorism.

Indeed, the discretion with which the term terrorist is used is applicable to Brasilia’s own insurgents. In a simple search for Bolsonarist groups, it is noted that President Lula, the MST, the Foro de São Paulo, Alexandre de Moraes and many other personalities and organizations are childishly described as terrorists. Calling extremists “terrorists” for this reason before sentencing is accepting the summons to an ideological pigsty where circumspection and law are lacking.

Was 1964 a “coup” or a “revolution”? Was 1915 a “genocide” or a “war crime” in Armenia? Was 1500 a “discovery” or a “finding”? The use of some words has implications. It awakens commotions and divisions. As we clear the palaces of rubble, the term terrorist should be used sparingly.

You May Also Like

Recommended for you